On 2015-04-13, at 11:55 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon
jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.camailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca
wrote:
3. The simplicity of copyright? This must be a joke. Think about the tension
between copyright and authors' rights (with its associated moral rights).
Think about
On 13/04/2015 14:09:02, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:
PLOS authors retain copyright. CC licenses are a waiver of one's rights under
copyright.
That isn't quite true - CC licences are an expression of the rights that you
grant to end users, and the conditions attached to
While Jeffrey Beale may find it acceptable, moral and simple to assign his
copyrights to a publisher simply for the benefit of being published, I find
it an intolerable demand and while I do sign such in order to facilitate my
career and to gain the benefits of dissemination in the best
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:
PLOS authors retain copyright. CC licenses are a waiver of one's
rights under copyright.
Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.com replied:
That isn't quite true - CC licences are an expression of the rights
that you grant to end users, and the conditions
On 11/04/2015 15:39:23, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:
For example, you have clarified that with PLOS CC licenses, PLOS is the
licensor.
That isn't what I said - I just agreed that your interpretation is probably
correct.
Are you an academic, or an employee of a company
The title of this post is a direct quote from Larry Lessig - see below for
context.
When policy makers are requiring the use of CC licenses, particularly the more
liberal licenses allowing for blanket downstream and commercial rights, they
should be aware of the potential problems as well as
hi David,
If this is the whole story (no other agreement between author and PLOS), then
the author is the Licensor, and PLOS is a Licensee, with exactly the same
rights as any other Licensee.
It would be helpful if PLOS would confirm whether this is indeed their
practice. This could be
Heather,
When you say CC licenses are a waiver of one's rights under copyright, I
think this only refers to the right to reproduce the text, and not to other
rights such as the author's moral rights. Of the moral rights, CC licenses
stress the attribution of authorship - which partially
On the publicly-accessible PLoS website we find
(http://www.plosone.org/static/editorial#copyright):
3. Copyright and Licensing
Open Access Agreement
Upon submitting an article, authors are asked to indicate their agreement to
abide by an open access Creative Commons license (CC-BY).
Thank you to Graham Triggs for clarifying that his agreement that in the case
of PLOS CC-BY licenses, PLOS is presumably the licensor is a personal opinion
as a member of the public.
PLOS authors retain copyright. CC licenses are a waiver of one's rights under
copyright. This suggests that
Heather Morrison wrote :
If a blanket [CC BY] license is granted, a downstream user would have to be
psychic to know what kinds of commercial uses or re-uses might be acceptable or
offensive to the original author.
to which Graham Triggs replied:
To the extent that the terms are compatible
Regarding this ongoing discussion about Creative Commons licenses and scholarly
publishers, I think it is fair to conclude the following:
1. There is much disagreement about what the licenses mean, how they can be
interpreted, and how they are applied in real-world situations
2. The licenses
With regard to Jeffrey Beall's arguments against CC licences, let me
respond as follows:
1. What is the evidence about the claim that there is much disagreement
about what the licences mean? We might see some disagreement about which
licence to use, but each licence is about as clear as any,
On 2015-04-13, at 10:35 AM, Chris Zielinski wrote:
When you say CC licenses are a waiver of one's rights under copyright, I
think this only refers to the right to reproduce the text, and not to other
rights such as the author's moral rights. Of the moral rights, CC licenses
stress the
Jeffrey Beall wrote:
There is beauty in the simplicity of copyright, that is, transferring one's
copyright to a publisher. It is binary. The terms are clear.
I must disagree here.
One the one hand, it's clear that the publisher then owns the copyright in the
work.
On the other hand, as
That's a lovely sentiment Jeffrey, except for the part about copyright
incentivizing publishers to make work available. It does just the opposite.
It provides them a clear incentive to restrict access to the work so that
they can compel people who need access to pay.
On Monday, April 13, 2015,
16 matches
Mail list logo
